Medievalists vs. the Middle Ages

Why historians hate history.

Michael Warren DavisMay 13

Earlier this year, I reviewed a book called The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe by Matthew Gabriele and David M. Perry.  I don’t want to pile on (again) but, let it suffice to say, it was possibly the worst book I’ve ever read.  

For instance, the authors say that, for too long, medievalism has been a tool of white supremacy.  And it’s true that racists have an affinity for medieval Europe, for obvious reasons.  But here’s how Gabriele and Perry tackle the issue:

The authors say of these white supremacists, “They looked into both the medieval and classical European past and imagined they found white faces, like theirs, looking back at them.  They were wrong about all of this.”  You’ll have to take my word for it, but there’s no context for this remark.  The authors seem to be arguing that whiteness doesn’t exist because 10th century Europe was actually full of black people.  If so, that would certainly take the wind out of the alt-right’s sails, though I’d really like to see their proof.

That should tell you everything you need to know.

Well, The Bright Ages is now at the center of an online fracas, because the authors are accused of being—get this—too right-wing.  

According to a report in The New York Times, a Dr. Mary Rambaran-Olm also wrote a strongly negative review of the book. Dr. Rambaran-Olm’s review was slated to appear in The Los Angeles Review of Books.  But the LARB ended up pulling the review, because…  well, that’s what the fracas is about.

Dr. Rambaran-Olm accuses the editors of “torpedoing” her review because they’re friends with Gabriele and Perry, whom she accuses of being tools of the American Right.  The editors say they pulled it because the author refused to accept “four minor edits.”  The email exchange has not been published, but of course every self-declared medievalist on Twitter is taking sides.  The debate is getting messy, with some defenders of the LARB apparently accused Dr. Rambaran-Olm (who is Anglo-Caribbean) of lying about her race.

It’s interesting that the brouhaha isn’t actually about the book (which is bad) or even the review (which is worse).  It’s about identity politics, and how hard it is for an academic—one who happens to be black—to get her lousy review of a lousy book published in a lousy magazine.

Happily, you can still read Dr. Rambaran-Olm’s review, which she posted on Medium.  It’s called “Sounds About White”, which should tell you everything you need to know.  But here’s Dr. Rambaran-Olm’s thesis statement just in case:

The core theme that runs through The Bright Ages is a Christocentric (that which is focused on Jesus and Christian narratives) one that recycles the usual stories of emperors, bishops, kings, military leaders.  Gabriele and Perry try to retell narratives about these convention [sic.] figures by discussing outside influence and “otherness” that played into these central figures’ successes and failures.

This may come as a bit of a surprise to Dr. Rambaran-Olm, but there we quite a few bishops and kings in the Middle Ages.  Granted, there was only a couple dozen bishops per country, and just one king.  As for “military leaders,” she probably means the nobility.  Noblemen were also a definite minority of the population.  Yet these two institutions—the Church and the State—wielded quite a lot of power.  Nearly all of it, as a matter of fact. 

One would think this would be obvious to a professional historian like Dr. Rambaran-Olm.  But, then, I would have thought it was obvious to Perry and Gabriele that there were white people in medieval Europe.  I’m not a professional historian—only a dabbler.  I like nothing more than to stretch out on the couch with a cup of tea and a little something by John Julius Norwich.  Yet here are three observations I’ve gleamed from my unguided studies.

First: that the overwhelming majority of people living in Europe circa the Middle Ages were white.  It’s generally believed that white people are indigenous to the region.  Second: most countries in medieval Europe were ruled by a mixed system of monarchy and aristocracy.  Republics were not unheard of, but they were exceedingly rare.  Third: a huge majority of the population was Christian. 

If we’re going to discuss a history of medieval Europe, it’s very important to keep those facts in mind.  

Of course, you don’t have to like them.  You can say that whites are a supermajority because [racism], or that monarchies are the norm because [oppression], or that Christianity is dominant because [theocracy].   And there would be some truth in that.  But it doesn’t change the fact that these are facts

The Middle Ages were an historical event.  They’ve already come and gone.  They can’t be other than what they were. 

To write a history of Medieval Europe, but without mentioning bishops and kings and white people, would be impossible. It would also be pointless.  It would be like writing a history of Germany between 1934 and 1945, but without mentioning Hitler.  First of all, you can’t.  But even if you could, why would you want to?  What interest could that era possibly hold?  The villains are all Nazis;  the heroes are all anti-Nazis.  It has to be “Nazi-centric.”  It can’t be anything else.

Now, you may think the medieval Church is the villain of medieval history.  And let’s say you’re right, just for the sake of argument.  Even so, how can a history of the Middle Ages not be “Christo-centric”?  It may be the story of a small, non-Christian minority struggling valiantly against the tyranny of Throne and Altar.  But whether they’re heroes or villains, Throne and Altar have to be main characters.

But Dr. Rambaran-Olm isn’t quite done yet. Later in her review, she writes:

In another place, the Abrahamic religions are described as “Asian” while Christ himself is described as a “Jewish refugee from the eastern Mediterranean who once crossed into Africa, who had now come to this island where He sat comfortably” (p. 74).  While it is true that Western religions have origins outside of Europe, descriptions like this try to de-Christianize Christianity, making it seem “hip,” international and inclusive, while erasing its present role in western imperialism.

In other words, Gabriele and Perry point out that Christianity is ultimately an “Eastern” religion, and they’re right… but that fact is inconvenient to my political agenda, so they shouldn’t have brought it up.

It’s unbelievably sad when historians feel guilty for having any warm feelings about their chosen field.  But this is how the modern academy operates.  You can’t even mention facts like “Jesus was born in Asia” without adding a lengthy disclaimer about how Jefferson Davis was a devout Episcopalian.  

Modern historians don’t study history. They hide from it.  They suffer from a collective case of nostophobia: a debilitating fear of the past. They live in constant horror of dead white men. What a sorry fate.

As I was writing this post, the latest edition of Ed West’s newsletter “Wrong Side of History” arrived in my inbox. Mr. West is also reviewing Dr. Rambaran-Olm’s review. (Maybe he also read about it in Micah Mattix’s “Prufrock” newsletter.) As always, he says it better than I could:

If you are the sort of person who craves power over others, then there is huge satisfaction in subverting a field of history for ideological reasons. There’s a thrill in having absurd claims taken seriously, in forcing people to repeat things which are clearly not true, because they’re scared to contradict you. In this, it is quite similar to the attraction of the transgender movement for a minority of men. 

Quite right. Bear in mind, too, that wielding that kind of power makes men miserable. These historians have set fire to their own field. It’s a power move, but not a smart one. As C. S. Lewis said, we go to Hell saying, “I now see that I spent most of my life in doing neither what I ought nor what I liked.” 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Until the Ukrainian conflict, we had never witnessed a major land war inside Europe directly involving a nuclear power.

In desperation, Russia’s impaired and unhinged leader Vladimir Putin now talks trash about the likelihood of nuclear war.

A 79-year-old Joe Biden bellows back that his war-losing nuclear adversary is a murderer, a war criminal, and a butcher who should be removed from power.

Imagine the Unimaginable

By: Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness

May 12, 2022

Americans are now entering uncharted, revolutionary territory. They may witness things over the next five months that once would have seemed unimaginable.

Until the Ukrainian conflict, we had never witnessed a major land war inside Europe directly involving a nuclear power.

In desperation, Russia’s impaired and unhinged leader Vladimir Putin now talks trash about the likelihood of nuclear war.

A 79-year-old Joe Biden bellows back that his war-losing nuclear adversary is a murderer, a war criminal, and a butcher who should be removed from power.

After a year of politicizing the U.S. military and its self-induced catastrophe in Afghanistan, America has lost deterrence abroad. China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia are conniving on how best to exploit this rare window of global military opportunity.

The traditional bedrocks of the American system—a stable economy, energy independence, vast surpluses of food, hallowed universities, a professional judiciary, law enforcement, and a credible criminal justice system—are dissolving.

Gas and diesel prices are hitting historic levels. Inflation is at a 40-year high. New cars and homes are unaffordable. The necessary remedy of high interest and tight money will be almost as bad as the disease of hyperinflation.

There is no southern border.

Expect over 1 million foreign nationals to swarm this summer into the United States without audit, COVID testing, or vaccination. None will have any worry of consequences for breaking U.S. immigration law.

Police are underfunded and increasingly defunded. District attorneys deliberately release violent criminals without charges. (Literally, 10,000 people witnessed a deranged man with a knife attack comedian Dave Chappelle on stage at the Hollywood Bowl last week, and the Los Angeles County D.A. refused to press felony charges.) Murder and assault are spiraling. Carjacking and smash-and-grab thefts are now normal big-city events.

Crime is now mostly a political matter. Ideology, race, and politics determine whether the law is even applied.

Supermarket shelves are thinning, and meats are now beyond the budgets of millions of Americans. An American president—in a first—casually warns of food shortages. Baby formula has disappeared from many shelves.

Politics resembles the violent last days of the Roman Republic. An illegal leak of a possible impending Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade that would allow state voters to set their own abortion laws has created a national hysteria.

Never has a White House tacitly approved mobs of protesters showing up at Supreme Court justices’ homes to rant and bully them into altering their votes.

There is no free speech anymore on campuses.

Merit is disappearing. Admissions, hiring, promotion, retention, grading, and advancement are predicated increasingly on mouthing the right orthodoxies or belonging to the proper racial, gender, or ethnic category.

When the new campus commissariat finally finishes absorbing the last redoubts in science, math, engineering, medical, and professional schools, America will slide into permanent mediocrity and irreversible declining standards of living.

What happened?

Remember all these catastrophes are self-induced. They are choices, not fate. The United States has the largest combined gas, coal, and oil deposits in the world. It possesses the know-how to build the safest pipelines and ensure the cleanest energy development on the planet.

Inflation was a deliberate Biden choice. He kept printing trillions of dollars for short-term political advantage, incentivizing labor nonparticipation, and keeping interest rates at historical lows—at a time of pent-up global demand.

The administration wanted no border. Only that way can politicized, impoverished immigrants repay left-wing undermining of the entire legal immigration system with their fealty at the ballot box.

Once esoteric, crack-pot academic theories—“modern monetary theory,” critical legal theory, critical race theory—now dominate policymaking in the Biden Administration.

The common denominator in all of this is ideology overruling empiricism, common sense, and pragmatism. Ruling elites would rather be politically correct failures and unpopular than politically incorrect, successful, and popular.

Is not that the tired story of left-wing revolutionaries from 18th-century France to early 20th-century Russia to the contemporary disasters in Cuba and Venezuela?

The American people reject the calamitous policies of 2021-2022. Yet the radical cadres surrounding a cognitively inert Joe Biden still push them through by executive orders, bureaucratic directives, and deliberate cabinet nonperformance.

Why? The Left has no confidence either in constitutional government or common sense.

So as the public pushes back, expect at the ground level more doxxing, cancel culture, de-platforming, ministries of disinformation, swarming the private homes of officials they target for bullying, and likely violent demonstrations in our streets this summer.

Meanwhile, left-wing elites will do their best to ignore Supreme Court decisions, illegally cancel student debts, and likely by the fall issue more COVID lockdowns. They will still dream of packing the Court, ending the filibuster, scrapping the Electoral College, adding more states, and flooding the November balloting with hundreds of millions more dollars of dark money from Silicon Valley.

When revolutionaries undermine the system, earn the antipathy of the people, and face looming disaster at the polls, it is then they prove most dangerous—as we shall see over the next few months.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Join the Dinesh D’Souza community and access his film ‘2000 Mules’

LOCALS.COM — This is Dinesh totally uncensored, unfiltered, and unchained. Become a part of the movement. Join the inner circle to get exclusive content and live Q&A!… (more)

Latest exclusive trailer released for ‘2000 Mules’ shows how the 2020 election was rigged and stolen [VIDEO] (Gateway Pundit)

See, in addition, the trailer of David Bossie’s ‘Rigged: The Zuckerberg-funded plot to defeat Donald Trump’ [VIDEO] (Citizens United)

View full ‘2000 Mules’ documentary FREE at BitChute [VIDEO] (

View full ‘2000 Mules’ documentary FREE at Telegram [VIDEO] (Telegram)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


MAY 13, 2022

2000 Mules and the Big Truth


2,000 Mules

I’m not really one for conspiracy theories, and that’s why I was captivated by Dinesh D’Souza’s 2000 Mulesa documentary that shows with transparency the disturbing nature and extent of highly suspicious irregularities that took place around special pandemic ballot drop boxes during the 2020 election. The film makes President Trump a prognosticator when he said, “if you count the legal votes, I easily win. If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us.” 

Even with the jaw-dropping evidence D’Souza presents in 2000 Mules, and the conservative applause it is receiving, it is disheartening to anticipate that nothing will come of this remarkable investigative reporting. The profound complacency and cowardice of the Right is almost to be expected, but it is never too late to level the censure that election law violations deserve. Especially since they are corroding our democratic republic together with any adherence to the truth that remains in our process of selecting government representation and leadership.


2000 Mules presents the findings of a Texas nonprofit organization called True the Vote, who used the location ping systems that cell phones generate—which are commonly used by apps, cell providers, and law enforcement—to observe and analyze the activity around ballot drop boxes in key counties of five swing states that determined the course of the 2020 election. (Many of these boxes were purchased with $400 million from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg through the left-wing Center for Tech and Civic Life, by the way.) 

Their discoveries are shocking, showing in practically undeniable fashion that at least 2,000 people in these swing states made visits to multiple drop boxes, mostly in the dead of night and wearing surgical gloves, to deposit multiple ballots. Security camera footage was coupled to the signals recorded by the geo-location records and shows these individuals in the act and then taking a picture of the drop box before heading to the next box.

There is no conceivable reason, save a nefarious one, that would prompt such unaccountable (and in some cases blatantly illegal) actions, which, if they are what they seem to be, interfere with voting laws and the voting process. D’Souza shows how the team at True the Vote collected and combed through the data surrounding these individuals—or “mules,” the term given to operatives who traffic illegally-acquired ballots—who visited more than ten drop boxes and five nonprofit organizations that collect ballots, using geo-fencing and geo-tracking, and assigning a moderate average of ballots deposited. 


The results of their equations are sufficient to reverse the electoral margins between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. And that is the conclusion that pertains only to the 2,000 people who met these criteria in those selected areas, which is to say that there may well be more in other locations or who did not visit as many drop boxes but who contributed in what has every appearance of being a widespread, coordinated attack on the election. 

There are some who dismiss 2000 Mules and its use of cell phone location technology, but it is very difficult to regard it as anything short of proof that something was very awry about the vote count in these swing states. And further, that it is almost a matter of certainty that the election was stolen. D’Souza provides clear and objective evidence of organized criminal action surrounding the harvesting of ballots and an explanation for the bizarre reversal that Americans witnessed on the morning after election day—when most went to bed with Trump firmly in the lead and woke up to find Biden suddenly in the lead. The media crowed that there had never been such a comeback in history. But many found it implausible if not impossible. Even as CNN and NPR pounded away with assertions that there was definitely nothing shady going on, many felt something was definitely wrong.

Let us not beat a dead horse—because the horse should not be pronounced dead. The outrage of the 2020 election shouldn’t be abandoned as “old news” or a “lost cause.” Conservatives and Catholics should not forget that it is unbelievable that doddering Joe Biden, with his Covid-shuttered campaign and limp base, won more of the popular vote than the “messianic” Barack Obama did in 2008. Though the January 6 protests did not help the cause, lambasted as it still is as the damning stain of the cause, the outrage must not succumb to desires to disassociate or rooftop condemnations. And 2000 Mules delivers the evidence the Right has been waiting for after court dismissals and legal fizzlings, confirming with both journalistic integrity and clarity the misgivings held by so many.


But what will the result of Dinesh D’Souza and True the Vote’s expositions be? In a nation that has lost its relation to truth, it is frustrating to expect the continued capitulation by conservatives, and Catholics, to lies. There is a spinelessness that has crept into the American character and the Catholic soul, something that is the result of the social mantra that good fences make good neighbors in a PC Marxist melting pot that is rife with the propagandist pressures of relativism.

But the Right’s conservatism shouldn’t prevent rebellion or revolution. Any fears that caution against destabilizing our democracy may destabilize our freedom. And it is certainly the case that the Left has absolutely no scruples about destabilizing democracy for its own ends. President Trump’s term was plagued by an incredible barrage of noise, wild accusations, outrageous investigations, and wasted tax-payer dollars on so-called suspicions of election interference and collusion with Russia. That happened.

But when it came to the suspicions and reports from the Right concerning voter fraud and breakdowns in election integrity, with the “shenanigans” that were observed at polls and surrounded unconstitutional Covid-19 modifications regarding mail-in ballots and drop boxes, the whole thing was quickly dubbed the “Big Lie.” It became an obvious matter of policy for the mainstream media, whenever referring to the 2020 election, to say that it was free and fair and that Donald Trump and his supporters were lying when they said the election was rigged.


So, again, what will be done with D’Souza’s documentary? Though it is receiving attention and acclaim by conservatives, there are already clear efforts to stifle it. It is tempting to chock up to coincidence the leak of the Supreme Court majority draft that would overturn Roe v. Wade immediately before the release of 2000 Mules, but the game of politics—especially in banana republics—has everything to do with seizing the spotlight through event orchestration in subtle sleights of hand that control the message of the day. Even Fox News censored reference to 2000 Mules, ostensibly to avoid bias and plunging against the assigned and largely accepted narrative. Where is the conservative courage against the audacious Left?

Irish poet William Butler Yeats wrote in “The Second Coming,”

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Not that Republicans are the best, so to speak, but Catholics should recognize that the conservative Right is closer to the truth than the liberal Left. But why is it that the affinity and attraction to truth does not encourage and inspire conviction and confidence to act authoritatively and decisively? Or at least with as much passionate intensity as we typically see on the Left? This is precisely the crisis that Catholics must respond to on the front lines because the GOP won’t; and if there is anything that we must live and die for, it is the truth, and that with every conviction of the Faith.

There was something not so subtle and almost certainly devious at work to overthrow President Trump; and 2000 Mules makes that point and makes that case loud and clear.

While there’s something deeply distressing about how all of this is playing out before our eyes, there’s something even more distressing in the bravado on the Left. But to many liberals, the ends justify the means: Even if what happened—and what may happen again—is acknowledged as cheating, anything is acceptable to keep a racist fascist out of the White House. End of story.

But we must not let it be the end of the story2000 Mules is a call to renew our resistance to what is truly the Big Lie—that Joe Biden won the election fairly and that there is no evidence of voter fraud. Conservatives and Catholics must fight on and fight with a will. At the same time, we mustn’t mind overly much about losing certain earthly battles because our war is already won, and we do not put our trust in princes. 

Defending the Faith includes defending the truth. And when a work of truth is released to repudiate lies in the name of the dignity of human freedom, it is the duty of Catholics to support it with vigor and the determined hope that we might earn the grace to preserve the Kingdom of God on earth for the sake of the salvation of souls. Nothing less is at stake in our political purposes, regardless of church and state separation; but without the truth, it is a purpose that will be thwarted with eternal consequences.

By Sean Fitzpatrick

Sean Fitzpatrick is a senior contributor to Crisis and serves on the faculty of Gregory the Great Academy, a Catholic boarding school for boys in Pennsylvania.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Biden is the most ardent defender of abortion rights ever to become president of the United States. That obviously means that his policies are in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic Church. For the most part, his Catholic Cabinet picks also reflect badly on him.

Biden’s Pro-Abortion Catholic Cabinet
May 13, 2022
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on President Biden’s Catholic Cabinet members:
We can tell a lot about a president just by knowing something about his Cabinet picks. This takes on special significance for Catholics when we have a Catholic president.
To begin with, we would expect a Catholic president to be faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church, especially on life and death matters. We would also expect that any Catholics who are chosen to be in his Cabinet would also be loyal sons and daughters of the Church.
Biden fails these tests. He is the most ardent defender of abortion rights ever to become president of the United States. That obviously means that his policies are in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic Church. For the most part, his Catholic Cabinet picks also reflect badly on him. He has eight Catholics in his Cabinet.
Lloyd Austin is Secretary of Defense. He has no public record on the subject of abortion. Denis McDonough is Secretary of Veterans Affairs. He has an uneven record on abortion, and while he is not a rabid defender of it, he has tilted toward the pro-abortion stance. The other six are all off-the-charts supporters of abortion rights.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, is one of the most extreme defenders of abortion-on-demand. He is loved by NARAL, the abortion giant, and has previously earned a zero rating from National Right to Life. He has no qualms about supporting partial-birth abortion, and his passion for abortion is so strong that it inspired him to attempt to close down crisis pregnancy centers in California when he was the state’s Attorney General. He is most known for seeking to punish the Little Sisters of the Poor by relentlessly seeking to force them to pay for abortion-inducing services in their healthcare plans.
Jennifer Granholm is Secretary of Energy. When she was Governor of Michigan, she twice vetoed a partial-birth abortion ban and worked with other pro-abortion politicians to loosen abortion restrictions.
Biden chose Samantha Power to head the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). When she was nominated, CHANGE, an international abortion lobby group, congratulated her for her pro-abortion work. Power has not been shy about her dedication to abortion rights.
Gina Raimondo is Secretary of Commerce. When she was Governor of Rhode Island, she championed a law that would allow partial-birth abortions. She also signed a bill that codified abortion protections.
Tom Vilsack is Secretary of Agriculture. When he was Governor of Iowa, he vetoed legislation that would have required abortion facilities to provide women with factual information about abortion risks and alternatives to aborting their child. He opposed consent laws that offered women contemplating an abortion with pictures of fetal development.
The Secretary of Labor is Marty Walsh. When he was Mayor of Boston, he supported abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded abortions. NARAL commended him when he sought to crush crisis pregnancy centers.
These are the Catholics who serve in Biden’s Cabinet. Most of them work to reinforce each other’s animus against the Church’s pro-life heritage. Indeed, given the responsibilities that some of them have, they are currently working to ensure that their deadly ideas are infused in their policy decisions.
It looks like Biden decided to double down in his support for abortion by choosing Catholics who would support him in this endeavor. He may fool some by walking around with a rosary in his pocket, but more savvy Americans—not just Catholics—are able to distinguish between posturing and fidelity to one’s religious tenets. That’s a test he cannot pass.
Today is White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s last day on the job—she is going to work for MSNBC, which should be a smooth transition. Contact:
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment




Francis Bishops Assumptions & the Sex-Abuse Nietzschean Worldview vs. The Catholic Worldview 

Atheism, Postmodernism & Rise of Sex Abuse – Defender's Voice

Pope Francis says seeing a psychiatrist helped himIs Pope Francis Denying Sin when he says Child MolestersPope reveals he had weekly psychoanalysis sessions

Max Weber and Sigmund Freud are the two writers most responsible for Nietzschean language in America. Few know that Freud was ” profoundly influenced by Nietzsche,” according to Bloom. Freud, much more than Weber, profoundly changed America from a Christian culture to a therapeutic or self-centered culture. 

The therapeutic approaches, which started with Freud, have a basic assumption that is not Christian. The starting point is not the Catholic worldview, which is summed up in the parable of the prodigal son: a fallen and sinful world with persons needing God the Father to forgive them so they can return to be His sons and daughters. 

Unlike the Christian worldview, the therapeutic starting point is that the individual must overcome personal unconscious forces, in Freud, and in Carl Jung the person must unite to the collective unconscious, which is shared by all humans. 

In both cases, the therapist assists his client to change himself to ‘become his real self.’ Forgiveness and returning to God are not needed. What is needed are not God and His Forgiveness, but a therapist assisting a self to reach the fullness of its self

… The failure of these Francis Catholic bishops is a failure to teach the faith and moral teachings of Jesus Christ. Getting rid of a few priests will not solve the problem if these basic assumptions stay, because more – only cleverer – sex abusers will rise up to take their place. 

I feel sorry for these Francis bishops and other Church leaders if they don’t take a look at themselves and repent of these basic assumptions in their dioceses. They must eventually come face to face with the Living God. He is the Father of these little ones who have been scandalized and abused. – The Catholic Monitor 

Fr. VF said…

Meanwhile, a million Americans have been murdered in hospitals. (The murdered are 95% of those labelled “covid deaths.”) Another million have been murdered by the bio-weapon injections. Every bishop knows that, if he utters a word about these murders, he will suffer the fate of Bishop Torres. Every bishop knows that the ongoing genocide has the full support of “the Holy Father.”- The Catholic Monitor []

Professor Allan Bloom, a philosopher who wrote “The Closing of the American Mind,” thought that Friedrich Nietzsche was the father of modern America. He said, “Words such as ‘charisma,’ ‘lifestyle,’ ‘commitment,’ ‘identity,’ and many others, all of which can easily be traced to Nietzsche … are now practically American slang.” 

But the most important Nietzschean slang word is “values.”

“Values” are the death of Christian morality because values simply mean opinions. If opinion is how things are decided, then might makes right. 

One must remember that whenever someone talks about values in modern America – family values or religious values or place-the-blank-in-front-of values – they are saying there is no real or objective right or wrong – only opinions of the self and its will to power. 

Nietzsche’s philosophy is summed up by Bloom as 

Commitment values the values and makes them valuable. Not love of truth but intellectual honesty characterizes the proper state of mind. Since there is no truth in the values, and what truth there is about life is not lovable, the hallmark of the authentic will is consulting one’s oracle while facing up to what one is and what one experiences. Decisions, not, deliberations, are the movers of deeds. One cannot know or plan the future. One must will it. 
As a philologist, Nietzsche believed there was no original text and transferred this belief to reality, which he thought was only pure chaos. He proposed will to power in which one imposes or “posits” one’s values on a meaningless world. 
Previous to Freud’s psychoanalysis, Nietzsche’s writings spoke of the unconscious and destructive side of the self. In fact, Freud wrote that Nietzsche “had a more penetrating knowledge of himself than any other man who ever lived or was likely to live.” 

Max Weber and Sigmund Freud are the two writers most responsible for Nietzschean language in America. Few know that Freud was ” profoundly influenced by Nietzsche,” according to Bloom. Freud, much more than Weber, profoundly changed America from a Christian culture to a therapeutic or self-centered culture. 

The therapeutic approaches, which started with Freud, have a basic assumption that is not Christian. The starting point is not the Catholic worldview, which is summed up in the parable of the prodigal son: a fallen and sinful world with persons needing God the Father to forgive them so they can return to be His sons and daughters. 

Unlike the Christian worldview, the therapeutic starting point is that the individual must overcome personal unconscious forces, in Freud, and in Carl Jung the person must unite to the collective unconscious, which is shared by all humans. 

In both cases, the therapist assists his client to change himself to ‘become his real self.’ Forgiveness and returning to God are not needed. What is needed are not God and His Forgiveness, but a therapist assisting a self to reach the fullness of its self. 

Freud, under the influence of Nietzsche, moved psychiatry away from the mechanistic and biological to the previously “unscientific” model of the “symbolic language of the unconscious.” 

Freud’s pupil Carl Jung took the symbolic language of the unconscious a step further. Unlike his mentor, Jung’s unconscious theory is not just about making conscious sexually repressed or forgotten memories. His symbolic therapy used what he called the “active imagination” to incorporate split-off parts of the unconscious (complexes) into the conscious mind. 

He believed with Freud that dreams and symbols are means to the unconscious, but for Jung the dream and symbol are not repressed lusts from stages of development. They are a way to unite with the collective unconsciousness. 

Many Christians thought this “language of the soul” was a step forward from what they considered the cramped scientific reality of modernity. What they didn’t understand was that Jung’s theory was part of a movement that led to the rejection of objective morality and truth. 

Jungian (and Freudian) psychoanalysis reduces Christian concepts such as God, free will and intelligence to blind reactions, unconscious urges and uncontrollable acts. Even more disastrous, Jung inverted Christian worship. 

Leanne Payne, a Christian therapist, considers Jung “not a scientist, but a post-modernist subjectivist. Jung’s active imagination therapy is hostile not only to the Judeo-Christian worldview, but to all systems containing objective moral and spiritual value. Within this world the unconscious urge becomes god. What the unconscious urge wants is what is finally right or moral. These psychic personae [complexes] are literally called ‘gods’ (archetypes),’ and so an overt idolatry of self follows quickly.” 

Within the modern French Nietzschean schools of thought, a type of Jungian unconscious urge is replacing the old existential conscious self who chooses. The post-modernist is moving from the idolatry of self to the idolatry of autonomous inner “beings” that, according to Payne, are similar to pagan “gods.” 

As C.S. Lewis predicted in “The Screwtape Letters,” we are moving to a “scientific” paganism. C.S. Lewis’ name for the “scientific” pagan was the Materialist Magician and the name of the autonomous inner “beings” was the “Forces.” 

In “The Screwtape Letters,” his character who is a senior evil spirit said: 

I have high hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, belief in us (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to the Enemy [God]. The “Life Force,” the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis may here prove useful. If once we can produce our prefect work – the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls “Forces” while denying the existence of “spirits” – then the end of the war will be in sight. 

Some of the largest audiences for this “scientific” paganism with its inversion of worship and the Judeo-Christian worldview are followers of Christ. By using Christian symbols and terminology, Jungian spirituality has infiltrated to a large extent Christian publishers, seminaries, even convents and monasteries. 
Many Christians are using Jung’s active imagination as a method of prayer. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., thinks this is dangerous “because this fantasy life has no moral underpinnings, because it helps to reinforce an experience of autonomous inner ‘beings’ accessible via the imagination, and because it is a defense against redemptive suffering, it easily allies with and quickly becomes a Gnostic form of spiritually with powerfully occult overtones.” 

If one is under the influence of the autonomous inner “beings,” uncontrollable urges can overpower the self. One can go temporarily or permanently insane. And in the Christian worldview, the autonomous inner “being” is not always just an imaginary being, but can be a personal being, which then makes possession a rare, but not impossible, occurrence. 

In fact, according to one Jungian therapist, Nietzsche himself went insane permanently when an autonomous inner “being” (archetype) overpowered him. So, unfortunately with the widespread acceptance of Jungian spirituality, mainstream Christianity seems to be moving to post-modern Nietzschean insanity and possibly, in some cases, possession. 

Jung’s autobiography is full of insane or occult experiences. He was continually hearing ‘voices.’ In his autobiography he said his home was “… crammed full of spirits … they were packed deep right up to the front door and the air was so thick it was scarcely possible to breathe.” 

During the Hitler regime, which itself was obsessed with the occult, Jung edited a Nazi psychotherapeutic journal where he said, “The ‘Aryan’ unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish.” Keep that word “potential” in your mind. It will be used by American psychology. 

Once opinion is master, then might makes right. In “Beyond Good and Evil,” Nietzsche proclaimed a new morality, “Master morality,” which was different from Christian morality – or “slave morality,” as he called it. He thought the weak have the morality of obedience and conformity to the master. Masters have a right to do whatever they want; since there is no God, everything is permissible. 

In what Nietzsche considered his masterpiece, “Zarathustra,” he said the new masters would replace the dead God. The masters were to be called Supermen, or the superior men. 

After Freud and Jung came Alfred Adler, also a follower of Nietzsche, with “Individual psychology,” which maintains that the individual strives for what he called “superiority” but now is called “self-realization” or “self-actualization,” and which came from Nietzsche’s ideas of striving and self-creation. 

The “human potential movement” and humanistic psychology of Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers are imbedded with these types of ideas. The psychologists of “potential” teach the superior man. 

Edvard Munch said: 

Alfred Adler translated Nietzsche’s philosophical idea of “will to power” into the psychological concept of self-actualization. Thus, Nietzschean thought forms the foundation for and permeates Alfred Adler’s Individual Psychology, Abraham Maslow’s Humanistic Biology, Carl Rogers’s Person-Centered Psychology, and has influenced many other psychological ideas and systems. … Alfred Adler was the first psychologist to borrow directly from Nietzsche, making numerous references to the philosopher throughout his works. Adler took Nietzsche’s idea of “will to power” and transformed it into the psychological concept of self-actualization, in which an individual strives to realize his potential. 
Mary Kearns, in an address to the Catholic Head Teachers Association of Scotland, spoke of the Nietzschean ideas now being taught in Catholic schools in the name of “scientific” psychology. Kearns said: 

The methods are based on “the group therapy technique” first developed in America in the 1970’s by two psychologists, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. They described how emotional conditioning should be carried out by a group “facilitator”. The facilitator does not impart knowledge like the old fashioned teacher. Instead he/she initiates discussions encouraging children to reveal their personal views and feelings. The facilitator’s approach is “value free”. There is no right or wrong answer to any religious or moral question. Each person discloses what is right or wrong for them. All choices are equally valid even if they are opposites. Everything depends on feelings or emotions. Reason and conscience are discouraged. If anyone attempts objective evaluation, they are to be treated as an “outsider” and there will be a strong emotional reaction against such “judgemental intolerance”. 

If it is true that Catholic education now uses these techniques in “teaching religious and moral education,” then the Catholic education system has entered into the Nietzschean insanity. If these are the techniques being used in education and in the seminaries, then sexual misconduct charges against priests are a symptom of “scientific” paganism replacing Christianity. 

Santa Rosa priest Don Kimball, who is charged with sexual misconduct, is an example of someone whose “approach” was “value free” – that is, there was “no right or wrong answer to any religious or moral question.” 

In 1996, Karyn Wolfe and Mark Spaulding of Pacific Church News said, “THE WEDGE! You can’t do youth ministry (any ministry for that matter) without it. … Basing his theory on psychologist Abraham Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of Needs’, the Rev. Don Kimball developed this model for the growth and maturity process of a group.” 

Another example of the value-free approach is Thomas Zanzig, a major leader in the Catholic Church for youth ministry, plus an editor and writer of Catholic textbooks. 

According to Marks S. Winward, Zanzig, in a book on youth ministry, “bases his ‘Wedge Model’ on a similar model developed by Fr. Don Kimble.” Homeschool leader Marianna Bartold said, “Sharing the Christian Message by Thomas Zanzig has students come up with as many slang or street words as possible for penis and vagina in three or four minutes.” 

Now, many might say these are only isolated cases of misuses of Maslow and Adler until one reads the original text. According to William Coulson, a former collaborator of Carl Rogers, 

Maslow was always a revolutionary. … In 1965, working a radical idea about children and adult sex into his book about management, “In Eupsychian Management: A Journal,” [Maslow said]: “I remember talking with Alfred Adler about this in a kind of joking way, but then we both got quite serious about it, and Adler thought that this sexual therapy at various ages was certainly a very fine thing. As we both played with the thought, we envisioned a kind of social worker … as a psychotherapist in giving therapy literally on the couch.” 

As one can see, the basic therapeutic assumption leads to certain results in the real world. These thinkers don’t believe in the basic Christian assumption that there is a need for forgiveness from God. Instead, they believe there is no sin, only selves needing to reach the fullness of themselves. 

It is understandable that atheists such as Nietzsche, Maslow and Adler could hold these basic assumptions, but that Christians and priests hold these assumptions is a disgrace. The denial of original sin and personal sin is, in large part, behind the headlines of the sex-abuse catastrophe and other dioceses. 

The failure of these Francis Catholic bishops is a failure to teach the faith and moral teachings of Jesus Christ. Getting rid of a few priests will not solve the problem if these basic assumptions stay, because more – only cleverer – sex abusers will rise up to take their place. 

I feel sorry for these Francis bishops and other Church leaders if they don’t take a look at themselves and repent of these basic assumptions in their dioceses. They must eventually come face to face with the Living God. He is the Father of these little ones who have been scandalized and abused.

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia. 

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”:

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”:

– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: 

 –  LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”

–  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes: 

– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” []

– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”:

– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush:

– A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:

What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties? and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”:

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


The Exasperated American

Will the voters channel their furor at this regime of lies

into an unprecedented turnout at the polls in November?

By: Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness

May 8, 2022

A large majority of Americans now have no confidence in Joe Biden and his administration, which often polls below 40 percent, with negatives nearing 60 percent.

Despite the 15-month catastrophe of his regime, the level of his unpopularity remains understandable but still remarkable. After all, in 2020 voters already knew well of his cognitive deficits and the radicalism of his agenda. They saw both clearly starting in 2019 and during the 2020 Democratic primaries, the primary debates, and the general election.

So what did Biden’s voters imagine would happen when a cognitively challenged president, controlled by hard-Left subordinates, entered office—other than what he has done?

Now, as then, the media is fused to the progressive agenda and does—and did—its best to turn a non-compos mentis Biden into a bite-your-lip centrist empath in the Bill Clinton “I feel your pain” mode.

The American people know that on every occasion their president speaks, he will slur his words at best. At worst, he will have little idea where he is, where he has been, or what he is supposed to be saying or doing. When he is momentarily cognizant, he is at his meanest, or he simply makes things up.

Our new normal of a mentally incapacitated president is not entirely new in American history—Woodrow Wilson was an invalid during the last months of his presidency. But Wilson’s condition was well hidden. Quite novel is the idea that the American people know the man in the White House is cognitively disabled and simply expect him to confirm that bleak diagnosis each time he opens his mouth.

If Donald Trump exaggerated, Biden flat out lies daily. His most recent untruth was his assertion that the MAGA movement represents “the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history.” Biden cannot really believe that roughly half the country is now more dangerous than Antifa, Black Lives Matter, the Weathermen, the American Nazi Party, the American Communist Party, and the Ku Klux Klan. And this comes from the mythically moderate “good old Joe from Scranton”?

The bullied people also know the Biden problem has no remedy. The 25th Amendment that Democrats and the Left raised nonstop in efforts to remove Trump—from the Rosenstein-McCabe wear-a-wire embarrassment and former Yale psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee’s congressional tomfoolery to the incessant Montreal Cognitive Assessment demands—won’t apply to Biden.

Either the media will continue to rebrand his incapacity as Ciceronian eloquence or it will privately gloat that Kamala Harris is so off-putting, so uninformed, so unpopular that the people would prefer an amnesiac Biden to a nonimpaired Harris. The truth is the three doyens of Democratic progressivism—Joe Biden, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)—all struggle with cognitive decline and rely heavily upon the media and the Democratic Party’s political attack machine to enjoy asymmetrical exemption. (Though, in Feinstein’s case, her support is wavering.)

Americans feel there is no remedy for this downward spiral until November. To get a sense of their dilemma, imagine a Richard Nixon in 1973 caught lying during Watergate but with Spiro Agnew waiting in the wings without a trace of scandal—except with one difference: the current media is now attacking not the president’s shortcomings, but the president’s critics who point them out.

Even if the Republicans were to win a 60-vote majority in the Senate, they would hesitate to impeach Biden simply because Harris is a more frightening prospect. And some Marquess of Queensberry centrist RINOs would not wish to codify the Democrats’ new standard of impeaching an opposition president the minute he loses the House of Representatives in his first midterm.

Most of the country has awakened to the fact that the Trump-Russia collusion story was essentially a Hillary Clinton campaign effort to destroy a political opponent, a presidential transition, and a presidency. And they know Clinton will never be indicted for her conspiracies and racketeering even if her minions rat her out to seek reduced charges for themselves.

That hoax was followed by an impeachment vote over a phone call based on two more lies: 

1) the Biden family was neither corrupt nor used Joe Biden’s office as vice president, and his future political career to leverage payments from Ukraine, and 

2) Donald Trump canceled military aid to Ukraine rather than sending them critical Javelin anti-tank missiles put on hold by the Obama Administration.

Americans know Google, Facebook, and Twitter censors were all enlisted in the effort to destroy a former president and his outspoken supporters. And they know there is no real remedy unless two or three more enlightened billionaires follow Elon Musk’s lead.

If Roe v. Wade were to be repealed, many Americans in red states will remain appalled that some blue states will allow abortions, especially late-term abortions after 22 weeks. But nearly all will accept the rule of constitutional democracy and thus the states’ rights to make their own laws that do not conflict with federal legislation as passed by Congress and signed by the president.

These red-state citizens know the opposite is certainly not true: blue state officials will do all they can to attack those who disagree with them, who consider abortion the destruction of human life in the womb. Expect more California-style official travel bans.

Americans know that the Department of Homeland Security’s new “Disinformation Governance Board” will, by design, be run by an arch-disinformationist Nina Jankowicz. The board’s entire purpose is to coordinate with the media to brand oppositional expressions as “hate speech” and “mis-, dis-, and mal-information” so that critics preemptively self-censor and moderate their opposition.

In this regard, they know that the Biden regime awards positions of great power in the U.S. government to those who do the very opposite of the intended offices’ purview. The goal is pure nihilism.

Thus, a mythographer and propagandist will adjudicate “truth.” A homeland security secretary will do his best to make the border entirely insecure. The secretary of transportation will see to it that freeways and bridges are not built. The department of energy’s task will be to ensure less energy is produced and its transportation is more expensive and more dangerous than ever. And the secretary of defense will oversee the most humiliating retreat in modern American history in Afghanistan as he cites our chief existential threat to be either climate change or “white supremacists.”

The people know the Left eventually always loses the support of the voters. But leftists still believe they can achieve and retain power, given that they control America’s cultural and informational institutions.

The Left remains hell-bent on radically changing the demography of the United States. And it always manufactures new hysterias—from the claim that Trump was “100 percent responsible” for every American death during the COVID-19 pandemic, to border officers “whipping” innocent illegal aliens, to Vladimir Putin single-handedly causing sky-high gas prices and the worst inflation since the 1970s. Each week brings another prairie fire hysteria. No sooner than it is exposed and refuted, and the Left is on to another conflagration.

Americans have a rough idea that the tragic death of George Floyd was not proof of an epidemic of lethal police shootings of black males. Yet that single death set off the entire woke conflagration of 2020 and, with the hysterias of the lockdowns, has nearly wrecked the country.

Yet in 2021, out of more than 10 million arrests in the United States, police shot about six unarmed black men. The same year, 346 police officers were shot, 63 fatally—to left-wing indifference. Moreover, roughly 8,000 blacks were murdered mostly by other blacks—to callous media and political silence. Thousands of lost black lives mattered little—except the fewer than 1 in 1,000 of that total who were tragically and lethally shot while unarmed by police.

Finally, Americans were angry at the rioting inside the Capitol on January 6, 2021. But they cannot forgive the needless lies surrounding that illegal act in an effort to fabricate an insurrection out of a spontaneous buffoonish riot.

So they recoil at the lies about Officer Brian Sicknick’s death. They are baffled about the silence surrounding the number of FBI informants among the January 6 protestors. They are angry about the lies surrounding the lethal shooting of an unarmed Ashli Babbitt. They don’t understand the refusal to release all videos or communications pertinent to the government’s reaction to the riot. And they do not fathom the disproportionate treatment of those charged with unlawfully entering the Capitol versus those 14,000 arrested during the summer of 2020 when rioting led to more than 35 deaths, some 1,500 police officer injuries, and $2 billion in property damage and massive looting.

They shake their heads when Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) directly threatened two Supreme Court Justices by name outside the court, ginning up an angry protest group at the doors. They are baffled that the White House press secretary sees nothing wrong with disseminating the private addresses of Justices to ensure mobs of protestors show up at their homes to intimidate them.

Of course, exasperated Americans are furious over the open border. They are angry their lives are being insidiously destroyed by the Biden inflation and energy prices. They are humiliated by the Biden debacle in Afghanistan and angrier still over his spiking crime wave and his mean-spirited senility. They resent Biden’s efforts to blame all these self-inflicted miseries on Donald Trump, or the “Putin price hikes” or the inability of a presidency to do anything about supposedly organic forces beyond his purview.

But behind the popular furor is a sense of impotence in the face of the untruth they are assaulted with day after day. In other words, bullied Americans are angry that people who control the nation’s institutions deliberately mislead them and do so because they hate them.

Let us hope that they channel this historic exasperation in November in a manner we have never seen before in the modern era.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


MAY 12, 2022

All Eyes on the Vatican After Cardinal Zen’s Arrest


Cardinal Zen

Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, retired Cardinal Bishop of Hong Kong and one of the world’s leading human rights activists, was arrested on Wednesday evening in Hong Kong along with three others. The four arrested were trustees of the “612 Humanitarian Relief Fund,” an organization that helps Hong Kong democracy activists pay their legal fees. Zen and the others were arrested for “collusion with foreign forces,” an offense which is part of a new security law instituted last year by Beijing to crack down on growing pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. They were later released on bail. 

The arrest of a prominent Cardinal by the Chinese government raises some uncomfortable and delicate questions about the cozy relationship that Pope Francis’s Vatican has fostered with Beijing. In addition, one has to wonder if Zen’s own strained relationship with the pope—due in part to that close Rome/Beijing relationship—will result in a muted response from the Vatican about this outrageous act by the Chinese government.


Joseph Zen was born in Shanghai but fled to Hong Kong to escape Communist rule at the end of the Chinese Civil War. After 35 years as a priest, he was named the coadjutor Bishop of Hong Kong in 1996 by Pope John Paul II. He became the Bishop of that city upon the death of Cardinal John Baptist Wu in 2002, was named a Cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006, and then retired from the See in 2009. 

Zen has been outspoken throughout his life about the Chinese government’s human rights violations, which of course has put him in Beijing’s crosshairs. Perhaps more surprisingly, however, is that this principled stand has in recent years put him at odds with the Vatican. 

For decades relations between the Vatican and Beijing were strained over a number of issues, the first being the appointment of Chinese bishops. Since the establishment of the Communist Party in China in 1949, Catholics in the country were split into two groups: an underground Church in communion with the pope (and with bishops appointed by the pope) and a government-supported “Patriotic Catholic Association” which named its own bishops without input from Rome. 


Until the pontificate of Francis, no solution to this dual setup could be negotiated between Rome and Beijing. But in 2018 the two parties signed an agreement in which the selection of bishops would be jointly decided by the pope and the Chinese government. Immediately after the deal’s announcement, Cardinal Zen condemned it, saying that the Vatican was “giving the flock into the mouths of the wolves.” 

Since then Cardinal Zen has been a thorn in Francis’s side, as he continues to advocate for the rights of Chinese Catholics in the face of the Vatican’s capitulation to Beijing. In October 2020 Zen traveled to Rome for the purpose of urging Francis to appoint a bishop of Hong Kong who, in Zen’s words, could be “trusted by the people.” However, the pope refused to meet with Zen and the Cardinal had to return home to Hong Kong empty-handed. 

Since that failed meeting Zen has not slowed down. His involvement in the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund is just one of many human rights activities for the 90-year-old cleric. He has been outspoken in his criticism of the pope, even lamenting Traditiones Custodis, the apostolic letter restricting the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass. 


Zen’s work has made living in Hong Kong dangerous. He considered leaving the city for the safety of Italy, but did want to abandon his people. 

Now that Cardinal Zen has been arrested, all eyes turn to Rome. The relationship between Cardinal Zen and Pope Francis is clearly strained, but will the pope let their differences—and his deal with Beijing—mute his duty and obligation to support a prince of the Church? 

As of this writing the Vatican has only stated that “The Holy See has learned with concern the news of Cardinal Zen’s arrest and is following the development of the situation with extreme attention.” 


While initial statements are often short on details, let’s hope that the Vatican does more than just “follow” this situation, but rather acts quickly in Cardinal Zen’s defense. 

If the Vatican doesn’t vigorously act to demand the immediate acquittal of Cardinal Zen—along with those arrested with him—it will set a terrible precedent. When even a Cardinal of the Church is not immune from a politically-motivated arrest by the Chinese government, what is the purpose of any deal or agreement between Rome and Beijing? The worse Zen is treated, the more obvious it becomes that the Vatican is just the lapdog of Beijing.

Further, if the Vatican does not protest strenuously against Zen’s treatment—even to the point of terminating its agreement with Beijing—then it’s open season on all Chinese Catholics. Any illusion that the 2018 agreement would protect the rights of Chinese Catholics to freely practice their religion would disappear. As Cardinal Zen predicted, it would be handing the flock over to the wolves. 

What can we ordinary Catholics do to help Cardinal Zen? First, we must pray and fast for the courageous Cardinal and all persecuted Chinese Catholics. Let’s flood Heaven for this brave witness to the Faith and advocate for the dignity of all men and women.

We can also contact our bishop, the papal nuncio, and even the Vatican directly and insist they do everything in their power to protect the rights of Cardinal Zen and other Chinese Catholics. No political agreement is more important than the rights and freedoms of persecuted Catholics. The pope and the Vatican must be made to see that their snug relationship with Beijing is being exposed right now, and they will have to choose a side.

[Photo Credit: AFP via Getty Images]

By Eric Sammons

Eric Sammons is the Editor-in-Chief of Crisis Magazine and the Executive Director of Crisis Publications.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


  Hong Kong authorities arrested Cardinal Joseph Zen today, and he is being held on suspicion of “colluding with foreign forces to endanger China’s national security.” (Video in article)

Cardinal Zen is one of the few voices in the Catholic hierarchy to publicly challenge Pope Francis’s secret deal with the Chinese Communist Party. As former Bishop of Hong Kong, Zen recently traveled to the Vatican to try to discuss this with Pope Francis, but his efforts proved futile when Francis refused to give him a hearing.

He was well aware of the risks he was taking, and now the 90-year-old Catholic hero has been thrown in jail for speaking out.

This news reminds us not to dismiss as temporary or “no big deal” the lockdown on humanity in which the CCP has been engaging in China in general but especially in Shanghai.

So the question is: As Christians come under ruthless persecution in China,  why is Pope Francis making secret deals with a Chinese Communist Party that is responsible for throwing even Catholic bishops in prison?

What is it going to take for the Catholic world to  finally admit that Team Francis is playing for the other side?
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Charlie has engaged in discussion the last few days with some pro-abortion folks on Twitter. It has been simultaneously frustrating, enlightening and a little heartening. Some friends say it won’t be long before Twitter bans him for some bit of fact they don’t like. We’ll see. The winds of change are blowing there, but the deal has not yet been consummated.The conversation is frustrating because of the enormous amount of logical fallacies, misinformation, ad hominems, and bald assertions masquerading as facts or evidence coming from the pro-abortion side.

A Pro-Life Apologia

charliej373May 11Baby Brother – by Holly CallieBy Charlie JohnstonI have engaged in discussion the last few days with some pro-abortion folks on Twitter. It has been simultaneously frustrating, enlightening and a little heartening. Some friends say it won’t be long before Twitter bans me for some bit of fact they don’t like. We’ll see. The winds of change are blowing there, but the deal has not yet been consummated.The conversation is frustrating because of the enormous amount of logical fallacies, misinformation, ad hominems, and bald assertions masquerading as facts or evidence coming from that side. I linked to a Yahoo News Item (NOT a conservative site) to provide video of hysterical protesters in front of Supreme Court Justices homes and the response from several was a disdainful, “Oh that video is from Fox News.” What?! So prejudiced against Fox News that they will not even look at video proof if it has appeared on the Fox Network?! That approaches invincible ignorance. The only problem that the left can possibly have with Fox is that it is moderately conservative, not that it is inaccurate. Over the last six years, Fox has proven to be far more accurate than CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the establishment media – so the left’s aversion to Fox is just a visceral emotion rather than a considered decision. (I was kind of amused because I have more than a few problems with Fox, myself, but lefties generally don’t get nuance. Their narrative is that conservatives are racist, misogynist, redneck watchers of Fox News and NASCAR races. It is a bigoted caricature rather than an effort to understand any arguments.) While it is frustrating to me, it is crippling to those so afflicted. What you don’t know will, indeed, ultimately hurt you.It gave me a key insight into something that has puzzled me for over a decade. Back when I was doing heavy politics, one of the things I was valued for was my ability to get into the minds of the opponents and figure out what course they would likely take. About a year into the Obama presidency that ability started taking a steep nosedive. I just couldn’t figure out what they were thinking. The thing was that back in the day, most conservatives and most liberals (not all) worked from a set of foundational principles. Their actions would differ based on their interpretive prism – but those actions were in service to their principles, and so they were coherent. Modern leftists (and some conservatives) have appetites – and their principles are only of use in service to their current appetites. That is why a month ago leftists were passionately opining that you had to be a biologist to know what a woman is and that men could get pregnant – while now they passionately opine that you must be a woman to have a say on abortion, at all. Their current appetite changed – and so did their principles. For genuine conservatives (and genuine liberals of 30 years ago) principles are pylons sunk into bedrock to serve as the foundation of the intellectual and philosophical structure they build atop it. For leftists, principles are just gear in their toolbox, to be casually taken up and set aside as their appetites demand. The latter approach is inevitably arbitrary and capricious, without any consistent coherence. This is why I cannot easily predict their course: there is no intellectual foundation on their side from which to work. One simply has to hypothesize where their appetites will take them next. Since their appetites are arbitrary and capricious, that is not as reliable as working with an actual intellectual foundation. One side has malleable actions in service to their principles; the other has malleable ‘principles’ in service to their appetites.Even so, the interactions gave me some heart. Most people simply no longer have the tools they need to do serious critical thinking. This is why so many want to abrogate their responsibility as a free citizen to an ‘expert,’ usually someone as uninformed as they are but with a credential. Philosophy has been seriously impoverished since the Enlightenment 300 years ago. It still bears occasional nuggets of insight, but is largely superficial and shallow – when it does not entirely engage in building castles in the air. Ironically in this age of “reason,” the best philosophy comes from serious theology (though I must concede that some of the worst modern philosophy comes from crackpot theologians). As my friend, Eschatologist Desmond Birch often says, most modern problems are the result of bad philosophy. Add to that the entire collapse of emphasis on evidence, logic and reason in the academy of ‘higher’ and lower learning and you have a whole generation of people who won participation medals without learning or having to seriously strive to actually win much of anything. They come to intellectual debate almost entirely unarmed with any facts or consistent logic. So it is not entirely surprising that they should seek to make every controversy a contest of will and raw, often, violent power. They are incapable of any other sort of discourse.So how can I be heartened? Despite the lack of factual evidence or the needed discipline for logical inquiry, some of them genuinely want to seek the good. They have simply been deprived of the necessary tools to do so with any precision by several generations of deficient – and often malicious – pedagogues. Unless they are gifted auto-didacts, it is unlikely that they can suddenly develop clear, consistent, and precise ways of thinking to build a solid foundation of coherent principles, either conservative or liberal (NOT leftist – which is profoundly anti-intellectual). Over the years I have had some very warm friendships with bona fide (and even prominent) liberals. Perhaps the most prominent was the late Sen. Adlai Stevenson III. We had some lively, intriguing conversations but that was because we both understood the basic foundational rules of actual facts, evidence and consistent logic. That can no longer be assumed. One time, I was charged with briefing a colleague who was going to meet with a prominent public figure who had been mixed and muddled on the issue of abortion. Suddenly it dawned on me that what my colleague should do was to focus on the basics – that we in the pro-life movement often assumed others to have far more basic knowledge on the subject than they actually do. My friend thought that was an inspired idea – and went with it. After the meeting, he called me and told me with some astonishment that he thought we had a real convert. Turns out the public figure had a top advisor with him, who confirmed all the factual information. The man got mad midway through – not at my colleague, but that he had been played for so long. So I think it may well be time to go back to some basics and fundamentals – not just making our case, but explaining the basis on which we come to it. There are some people we can never reach. They live like an exposed nerve and get some weird excitement out of raging all the time, even at the price of constant misery. A good chunk of those we can reach will still disagree, but will at least do so on more solid intellectual ground and tone down the desperate emotional angst. But some, given the tools for critical, rational thinking, will have a genuine conversion experience like the public figure I mentioned. I am not too naive, I don’t think. Certainly, the majority of the left love their ad hominems and non sequiturs, thinking it brilliant when it doesn’t even rise to the level of rank sophistry. But there is a small remnant of people there who want to find the good and live it rather than just slavishly work to protect their own perceived privilege and power.Since most of the discussions I reference have happened on Twitter – where it is difficult to make a sustained and nuanced discussion of any depth, I am going to apply the technique to the issue of abortion next. This is just a cursory examination – but it is a start.********* The only question that matters in the abortion debate is whether or not the fetus is a human person. If he is, he is entitled to the rights that all other persons are. If not, he is not entitled to any of the rights other persons are. Until that question is answered, everything else is a distraction and a deflection.Both science and orthodox Christian theology are in lockstep that the fetus IS a fully human person at an early stage of development. A very few avant-garde philosophers disagree, but they get into some very strange corners – such as Peter Singer who often  argues that a mother should have a “right” to terminate her child up until it is a year old.Despite this, a whole host of deflecting arguments are raised that cannot stand the most basic test of examination. The first is that abortion is a woman’s right. That fails to understand what a right is and who can guarantee a right. The rights embedded in our Constitution are based in natural law theory. They precede the existence of the state and cannot be revoked. They are granted by God or, if you will, by natural law. That the founders chose this basis was subtle genius for several reasons. First, whoever grants a “right” can also revoke it. Thus, any right granted by a government would be insecure and subject to the transient whims of that government. If you believe that the state is the grantor of rights, you may protest when it revokes it, but you have no grounds to complain that they have done anything untoward whether you agree with the result or not. He who grants a right has authority to revoke it. This is why the very idea of a government granting rights founds those rights on sand. Acknowledging that all genuine rights exist with the person before the existence of the state both secures individual rights and establishes a demanding test for the legitimacy of any government. A government that does not defend actual rights is, prima facie, illegitimate.What governments can grant are indulgences, privileges and entitlements. But again, these can be legitimately revoked by the same authority that granted them in the first place. You may want universal health care, but it cannot be a right because it is not something endowed to you before the very existence of a government. You may vote for – or a sovereign may decree – universal health care, but the same can be repealed by another vote or the contrary whim of the sovereign. It is not the same thing as a right, which cannot be legitimately impinged upon by any person or state.The only limits to rights are if one person’s right impinges upon that of another person. Thus, I have the right to freely swing my arm at will, but that right ends at the tip of another’s nose. No one has the right to deprive another of any of their rights except with due process of law for criminal behavior. There are some areas that seem to obviate this, such as the doctrine of eminent domain, which allows a unit of government to forcibly take a person’s land without their approval – but even this can only be done for a compelling public good following due process and with just compensation. The fundamental doctrine is that no person or institution may do violence to the rights of another person. Thus, if a fetus is a human person, as both science and orthodox Christian theology agree, then no other person has the right to deprive him of his fundamental right to life. That means neither the father nor the mother – nor anyone else – can legitimately deprive that unborn person of his rights, for there can be no right to deny the rights of another innocent person or class of persons.A spokesman for a pro-abortion institute once argued with me when I had him on my Chicago radio show that we could all just agree that, in this case, life begins at birth – and that would solve the problem. It does not. Philosophical principles must be coherent and consistent or they can be expanded or contracted in arbitrary and capricious ways that, ultimately, can target the very person arguing for an arbitrary definition. Arbitrary definitions always begin the slide away from the rule of law and towards the raw will to power.A few examples:State of development. If you argue that there are some states of development before or after which a person is not entitled to human rights, what is to prevent anyone from extending that state of development before which a person can be lawfully killed? In Peter Singer’s case he advocates for obvious sentience – which could extend to a year or more after birth. What if the standard was extended to the capacity for independence? Then you could euthanize some healthy teenagers. What principle could limit this standard from being extended if a sufficient number of the body politic – or if the sovereign – decided to extend it? It is building on sand – and quicksand, at that.Dependence. There is no doubt that an unborn child has a unique and complete dependence on its mother that can be a real burden on the mother, particularly if she is unhappy with the situation. This is often used as justification for abortion, usually by arguing that a baby has no right to life unless he is “wanted.” Take care again. Given this standard, on what basis do we prosecute women who have killed their born children? Clearly the children were now unwanted. Going further, how do we protect anyone who is in a position of dependence on another? Follow this  argument to its logical conclusion and relationships between mankind simply become a complicated form of animal husbandry – with the shepherd’s hold on his dominant position ever in peril. There are safe alternatives to this. In another age, the way to prevent such an unwanted dependence was through contraceptives or abstinence. What a general abortion regime demands is that no one exercise any self-restraint or accept any consequences for that lack of self-restraint. That is not a “right;” simply a demand for absolute, unchecked privilege over another human being.Interest. It is often argued that fulfilling the demands of pregnancy imposes an intolerable burden on a woman’s interests – delaying schooling, impeding her career or other such arguments – all of which are an argument against interest. Yet if you posit that there are circumstances when one person can freely kill another person because that person impedes the interests of the first person, you have set out on a slippery slope that ultimately ends in the decriminalization of homicide. It would make for a hitman’s paradise. These are just a few of the philosophical conundrums one gets into when trying to justify abortion on demand.Whenever one group of people sets out on a course of genocide against some other class of people, the instigators insistently work to dehumanize those they would exterminate – and studiously try to avoid and deflect from the key question: the humanity or lack thereof of their proposed victims.Even the slogans adopted by such movements are designed to deflect from that question. Peruse the Congressional Records of the 1850’s – particularly of the senate, and you will be shocked at the familiarity of the slogans to today’s pro-abortion slogans. “Don’t agree with slavery? Don’t buy one,” southern senators often taunted their northern colleagues., completely dismissing any question of the humanity of the enslaved. Southern officials often tried to argue that northerners had no say over the matter at all since they could not own slaves and were not affected by it. This subtly ignores the humanity of the enslaved by arguing that only those who were directly involved – who were perpetuating the peculiar institution – were allowed to have a say at all, thus hoping to completely bar those who would speak for the enslaved from speaking at all. For many decades, the two camps lived in uneasy tolerance of each other, but then the Dred Scott decision forced northerners to help enable and protect slavery as well as southerners. It is equivalent to the Roe v Wade decision in our own time, which forced all states to allow abortions, whether the people of the state agreed or not. The American founders had limited slavery to those states which had it at the founding, in hope that it would ultimately die out of its own accord. But the advocates of slavery insisted that it was the divine right of every white man who wanted to own a slave – and they desperately wanted to expand it. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 sought to give power to the individual states under the doctrine of “popular sovereignty” as articulated by Illinois Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas. Of course, it was another effort to elide the question of the humanity of the people enslaved entirely – as they would have no say in the matter whatever. “Let the people decide,” was Douglas’ cry – except, of course, for the people who were most affected, black people. It was the 1850’s version of the “pro-choice” mantra of let the woman decide. On a question of humanity and human rights, ALL people have a say.In the immediate aftermath of Roe v Wade, there was no talk of a woman’s right to choose. Abortion, according to advocates, was just the removal of an undifferentiated clump of tissue with no moral dimension at all. I must concede that I was naïve about this. I thought that as time and scientific advances demonstrated the humanity of the unborn, the advocates of abortion would step back from the abyss to which they had led us. To my horror, in 1982 (or it might have been ’83 – early in the Reagan administration) Planned Parenthood recognized that their “clump of tissue” argument was no longer…ahem…viable because of the rise of ultrasound technology. They sent out a confidential memo to their affiliates advising them to abandon the “clump of tissue” argument and start describing abortion as a “woman’s right,” in order to protect their business model.Margaret Sanger, the pioneering founder of Planned Parenthood, was an enthusiastic progressive advocate of eugenics, using ‘science’ to purify human stock. She set up her first clinics in predominately black neighborhoods, instructing acolytes to use black ministers to advocate for the program in order to keep word from getting out that their aim was to “exterminate the black population.” She spoke to a lively and welcoming group of a women’s chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey. She was an enthusiastic supporter of the eugenics agenda of Hitler’s Germany, publishing an article entitled, “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need” in her April, 1933 edition of Birth Control Review (the original version of Planned Parenthood’s magazine}, penned by Ernst Rudin, Hitler’s Director of Genetic Sterilization.The issue hits me viscerally. As a boy, in the mid-60’s, long before Roe v Wade, I had a terrible nightmare. In the dream, my then best friends’ mother had taken us to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. At one point, screams broke out and she came and helped us to hide, telling us that they were putting the children to the knife. I asked her why someone didn’t call the police – and she told me the police were helping them. I was sweating profusely when I woke – and almost 60 years later, the dream still sometimes haunts me.When I was doing radio in Chicago during the 90’s, abortion was a frequent topic. For a time, various abortion groups organized a letter-writing campaign in hopes of getting me fired – and had assigned people to monitor my show. A large part of my abortion coverage was quoting verbatim sections of Sanger’s book, “The Pivot of Civilization,” the most disgusting and vile thing I have ever read. (Sample quote: “ The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”) I urged listeners not to take my word for it, but find the book in a big library and take Sanger’s word for it. Amusingly, though the station had no intention of firing me, the harassment stopped after several of the abortion groups’ volunteer monitors took my advice, got the book and read it for themselves – and left the abortion industry. During this time a strange phenomenon took hold. Three or four times a week I would get phone calls from random women who had had an abortion and never told anyone – and wanted to talk to me about it. The calls always went to the newsroom and, after a while, the reporters could tell. “Charlie, “ they would say, “You’ve got a call. It’s one of those calls.” I think I got them because, on air, I considered the babies as the primary victims of abortion and women as the secondary victims – and urged pro-lifers never to treat women who had had an abortion with contempt. The abortion industry already did that, seducing them with soothing phrases about how much they cared to lure them into an abortion, then discarding them like a used condom after they had their way with them. The stories I heard were heart-breaking, women who told me how their boyfriends or parents had pressured or forced them into getting an abortion. Several told me how the “womens’ center” assured them this was just a blob of tissue – and they believed it until they glimpsed their baby’s broken remains before the ‘doctor’ got them off the tray. They all felt guilty and abandoned, a terrible sense of quiet desperation they rarely spoke at all of. I came to think of abortion as a hole in the heart of women who suffered it, a wound that would not heal. In some it manifested as deep, unending and unvoiced guilt. In others, it manifested as a passionate advocacy for abortion in a desperate effort to convince themselves it was okay. I always finished the conversation by telling the women that their child was in heaven and wanted more than anything to be re-united with them there – so do not despair, talk to your Priest or Pastor and seek forgiveness for your error that you may, indeed, joyfully be re-united with your child in the next life. I once had a young woman who had passionately debated the subject with me in the studio on air. She followed me out to the car continuing the argument. Suddenly, I was inspired to repeat the same thing I told all the women who called me to share their grief. The young woman started shaking, burst into tears and hugged me. I wish I could tell you some satisfying ending to that story, but I never encountered her again, though I pray for her from time to time. I was so thankful for the formation of Rachel’s Vineyard, which helps women who have had abortions recover from the sorrow and guilt of it.Before he was president, Abraham Lincoln wrote a compelling fragment in a private journal. He said he despised slavery for the major three types of violence it did:First, the obvious violence it does to the enslaved.Second, the violence it had done to civil discourse in the country.Third, the violence it did to the slaveholder, who had to desperately deaden his conscience to justify what he was doing.I completely concur – and may the violence of abortion pass away as completely as the violence of slavery did over a century and a half ago.*********Just a few weeks left in our Easter fundraising campaign for CORAC. God bless you all for your generosity. We can pay the bills for the next couple of months and keep the instructional videos in health and well-being and gardening and home skills, while preparing to do some of the same for ham radios. We will keep connecting people across the country with each other, to be a sign of hope to each other and to our increasingly battered world. I expect to have the Brazen Serpent Prayer Cards available within, maybe, a month. You can donate here or send a check to the address at bottom. I hit the road again in about a week and a half. I will speak in Colorado Springs on Saturday, May 21 and then in Las Cruces, New Mexico on Wednesday, June 1. 
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment